Brian,
You are right when pointing out that there is a contradiction --in my
previous email-- between my first statements on the relationship between
privacy and net borders and my conclusion. I started off by putting
together two different concepts--privacy and anonymity--which are related
but are not synonyms. The ability to create borders has a direct
relationship to the lack anonymity, which has a strong relationship to
privacy. However, anonymity does not exhaust the concept of privacy.
This being said, a few comments on your post.
[snip]
"The reason I wonder about this has to do with the very problem that has
motivated the debate in this whole thread: Nortel's information-gathering
software. There is a paradox here: How could any right to privacy be
instituted and maintained if it were not possible to gather information
about Nortel and use it to "block" the company from commercializing its
software and/or services? To be concerned about Nortel is to want to put a
block on their software, no? But given that a corporation has "rights" in
the neoliberal order, the same rights as any other actor in the
marketplace/world, what can justify putting a border around it?"
[snip]
I think that here we are talking about two different things: secrecy and
privacy. Nortel's software can be discussed (I am not sure about the
possibilities of individuals blocking it) because it is not secret. As far
as I can see this is not directly related to privacy. Their system is only
a threat to privacy because in its normal functioning it collects lots of
data about users, who are unaware they are being tracked. Companies can
argue that they will not use it, sell it or even keep it, but they are in
fact collecting it, which means that sooner or later this data can be
transformed into valuable knowledge about individuals and their habits.
Data collection is the core of our famous information age.
I am also not sure that being concerned about Nortel's software means
wanting to block it, perhaps all that is necessary is to make some changes
on the software's code... For example, Nortel could have come up with a
software that indicates location without giving up identity.
If I understand correctly, you seem to think that "institutional borders"
are inevitable, and that "personal borders" are desirable. I also think
that the institutional borders are definetly being pressed for, and this is
why it is ever more urgent to consider how these borders will work. Think,
for example, of traditional borders: Most people are used to borders and to
the necessity of proving one's identity (loosing one's anonymity) that
comes with it. Showing the passport or ID card when crossing a frontier, or
when entering a building, etc.., is nothing new. However, in the
traditional model, the moment we cross the border, our anonymous condition
is, in most cases, returned to us. What happens is that with the
Internet--and increasingly with other wireless technologies--this is not
the case. The system is created in such a way that its normal working
involves an almost continuous collection of data.
On the level of personal borders, I am not sure I fully understand your
argument:
[snip]
But I am very much in favor of finding a way to block the actions of
corporations like Nortel which aim at commodifying our privacy, not by
bordering our actions in any way of course, but by turning them in
the "lifetime value" that can be extracted out of a known,
monitored,predictable and stimulable consumer.
[snip]
Isn't this "lifetime value" exactly the idea of privacy as a commodity? The
only difference is that in this approach the user gains (money?) from its
loss, and in Nortel's the other the user just loses. For me the bottom line
is that in both the user loses her/his privacy. There are already
techniques for creating personal borders which dont involve a loss of
privacy, for example, the filters that block certain individuals from
reaching us, the use of nicknames when posting on certain lists, the use of
privacy enhancing technologies that allow us to browse the web anonymously.
One may argue if the best solution is to fight back with code, but it seems
to be the most promising.
Finally, I agree with you that there is a difference between government
(state) and corporations and that on many issues it is better not to
confuse both. But, I do not agree with the exemption of corporations from
the Kafka metaphor. I think that as the experience of citizenship is
mingled and taken for an experience as a consumer, this difference blurs.
Think of the incredible power that a bank has in your personal life when
deciding if you are a credit worthy individual. Having a credit history is,
in many countries, more important than possessing citizenship. Banks are
part of the corporate world, but their power on the experience of
citizenship goes way beyond their corporate mandate. A couple of days ago,
in a lecture dedicated to privacy in the wireless world the speaker, Mike
Gurski, gave the example of a banker who was proudly announcing that his
bank now knows all the details about their best clients life: from the time
they get up, to the time they go to bed. This is much more than any fascist
government could claim for themselves.
All the best. Ana
At 04:06 PM 2/3/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Ana,
>
>I was struck by the concerns of your post, some of which I think I share,
>and I am curious to know the reasoning behind the way you equate borders,
>loss of privacy, and the ability to block someone out ("The creation of
>borders is dependent on the loss of privacy, for you cannot block someone
>out unless you have some information about who they are"). I may not
>understand correctly, but it seems to me there is a contradiction in the
>way you end your post:
>
>[snip]
>"The attempt to create frontiers on the Net (and this time not wild-west
>ones) is directly, although not exclusively, related to privacy. The
>discourse on the creation of borders takes many forms: national
>sovereignty, security, law, taxation, etc. But it can be reduced, in a very
>basic form, to the balance between the right to privacy and all the above
>mentioned issues. Check out, for example, the new European/international
>Cybercrime Law.
>
>If one wants to maintain a border-free internet then dismissing privacy
>concerns is definitely the wrong approach."
>[snip]
>
>The reason I wonder about this has to do with the very problem that has
>motivated the debate in this whole thread: Nortel's information-gathering
>software. There is a paradox here: How could any right to privacy be
>instituted and maintained if it were not possible to gather information
>about Nortel and use it to "block" the company from commercializing its
>software and/or services? To be concerned about Nortel is to want to put a
>block on their software, no? But given that a corporation has "rights" in
>the neoliberal order, the same rights as any other actor in the
>marketplace/world, what can justify putting a border around it?
>
>This question does not mean I am particularly in favor of, say, the
>unqualified assertion of national sovereignty in the realm of internet
>communications (as some assumed after an earlier post of mine) or that I am
>not concerned about the abuses of privacy in the recent international
>Cybercrime Law. But I am very much in favor of finding a way to block the
>actions of corporations like Nortel which aim at commodifying our privacy,
>not by bordering our actions in any way of course, but by turning them in
>the "lifetime value" that can be extracted out of a known, monitored,
>predictable and stimulable consumer.
>
>And then there is a second matter, very different from the first, where it
>really is a question of getting blocked by a state power, a la Kafka. I
>think it's better not to confuse the two, state and corporate power, but
>let me say I am also very much in favor of ways to keep nations or
>supernational entities from mining my personal data and using it against me
>on ideological grounds.
>
>In other words, I want certain statutory borders around _myself_ and the
>sphere of my interrelations with others. I want certain rights more
>powerful than those of the corporations and the states.
>
>How do you suppose that we can erect _those_ borders and effect those
>blocks? Because after all, it's going to have to be some kind of "we" that
>gets the ball rolling, no individual is going to beat the gov'ts and big
>corps.
>
>I am sure that only some kind of legitimate institution can block Nortel
>and its like, when that institution has at its disposal some kind of
>constraining force (a force which itself, of course, may become dangerous
>to my privacy: ex. the CIA).
>
>I am also sure that if we continue to live in a world of internet
>communications and transnational economic exchanges, then that
>privacy-protecting institution must ultimately become global in scope.
>
>If (but only if) we agreed on that, then the next question would obviously
>be one of strategy: What is the best way to go about getting an
>effective-but-not-too-dangerous global (gasp) regulatory institution? I
>think, in this case as in so many others, the strategy is complex: it
>usually involves contesting the legitimacy of existing global regulatory
>structures (most of which favor big business and the police/military
>apparatus of states), then bringing the issue back to national
>institutions where often (but not always) more democratic/egalitarian
>procedures are inscribed into, then going back to transform the
>transnational level with the force of a judgement made on the national
>level. _Or doing the reverse_, in the case where the
>democratic/egalitarian potential of the global institution is stronger.
>
>In either case, some kinds of "borders" are going to have to be accepted,
>and worked with (or around). The balance indeed becomes the issue. Which
>is just part of what of what Polanyi called "freedom in a complex
>society."
>
>best, Brian Holmes
>
>
>
>
># distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
># <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
># collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
># more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
># archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net
----++++----++++----
Tudo vale a pena se a alma não é pequena.
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~aviseu
_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold {AT} nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold